Public executions (viewable on TV and YouTube) of the most heinous offenders should curb the problem very quickly. Especially if the first batch is a disturbingly large (and gruesomely executed) one, I think a significant amount of the less serious offenders would back off - although in the long run we don't want these people alive either...

But, a much more easily attainable solution within our current political climate / system is this: we start sending white-collar criminals to hard-time fuck-me-in-the-ass prisons, and seize money / assets equal to the value of the damage caused, using the proceeds from this to repair the damage - and maybe even an extra 15% of the calculated damages for prophylactic measures (build a park for the afflicted community, etc). America's prison system is most certainly corrupt (run for private profits), ineffectual (recidivism / criminal ed. 101), and a sadistic, torturous form of punishment, but I suspect that the deterrence effect would work spectacularly well on those who aren't completely destitute. The number of new inmates as a result of this would be a drop in the bucket, and is compatible with a long-term goal of reducing the prison population.

Bleeding heart liberals would support this move to bring justice to the evil corporations and save the earth, impoverished Blacks and Hispanics would support Whitey being subjected to the same penalties / threats that they are, and the right-wing seems to love most punitive / moralistic legal propositions. I think we should try and work within the system on a few key issues, like this one, which are realistically attainable, both by infiltrating the aforementioned groups and by creating new platforms which do NOT scare people away by advocating hard-line issues like eugenics. It's far from an ideal solution, but I believe that this would be much more than a "band-aid". In any event, I'm rather depressed / disgusted by the sentiment of some users here that "the earth is fucked, so we can only make art to prepare for the coming apocalypse and it's aftermath". While I suspect that this is to some extent true, I see two key problems to such a fatalistic attitude:

1) Understanding history allows us to make better *guesses* about the future - that's all - of a world in constant change. Basic principles may be postulated, such as the necessity of any organism to decline and die, but we can't be certain what the death throes of our culture will look like. I fear that most of us will live to see species and ecosystem extinction beyond even our worst dreams, horrific anarchy and bloodshed in the streets, and insane dictatorial purges of the competent and incompetent alike. But it's also conceivable that through hard work some of this can be genuinely avoided, and not merely delayed.

2) The raw animal instinct in me screams to FIGHT TO THE FUCKING DEATH when backed into a corner. I think I could die in relative peace of mind even in a wasteland of iniquity, if I knew that my fight had been good, and my fight had been hard.

"It's not my fault that I'm oppressed by these stupid plebeians! We need to wait for a genocidal dictatorship to save the world, because those people will certainly want us as their trusted adivsors..."

Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.

‘I wish it need not have have happened in my time,’ said Frodo.

‘So do I,’ said Gandalf, ‘and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.’

So your saying government should have the right to interfere where the environment is being destroyed?

This is the problem: few trust government (except delusional liberals) because government is ultimately, people. So they demand more oversight instead of demanding what any sane person would, which is better people in government.

Do we seriously think we can have elected actors overseeing millions of quasi-literate, overweight single mothers who administrate government? Not if we want real function.

This is the problem: few trust government (except delusional liberals) because government is ultimately, people. So they demand more oversight instead of demanding what any sane person would, which is better people in government.

Do we seriously think we can have elected actors overseeing millions of quasi-literate, overweight single mothers who administrate government? Not if we want real function.

I agree. But how do we get better people in government? IQ / moral / commonsense competence testing will require quite a bit of oversight. I think this problem (as well as many of our environmental and social woes) would be easier to manage if we returned a majority of the political / economic focus to the state / township level - if everyone knows everyone fairly intimately, it's easier to agree on who is insane / incompetent / scum. But as you have said, government is ultimately people, and I can conceive of no truly desirable balance between a centralized, unchecked strongman or oligarchy, and the diffused avarice / dysfunction of our "democracy" - maybe a genuine aristocracy will decay more slowly? I suppose that any system will have it's weaknesses that eventually lead to dysfunction and downfall, so I'm not challenging you to provide a 3 step plan for eternal utopia - I just think that ANUS.com and it's affiliates have LONG since reached a consensus on what we'd like society to look like (in the abstract), as well as several of the precursors to achieving this, like culling the herd - and it is now high time that we begin formulating more concrete details, and set a plan in action, no matter how long term it may be.